ML19242D747
| ML19242D747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242D746 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908170522 | |
| Download: ML19242D747 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REG'JLATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENF VICTCR STELLO, UR., DIRECTOR In the Matter of ) KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) (Wolf Creek Generating Station) Unit 1) ) D,cket he. STN 50-4E2 ) (10 CFR 2.205) DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF REOUESTS 0 CFR 2.206 William H. Ward, by petitions c behalf of the Mid-America Coaliti a ed Janua ry 11 and Jur.e 29, 1979, on Richarc P. Pollock, by petiticn dat don ror Energy Alterna t December e Critical Mass Energy Project 27, 1978, on behalf of th , and other persons 1/ e Comission suspend or revoke Const have recues ted that the construction of the Wolf Creek Gener tiruction authorizes e receipt of MCEA's and Critical Mass ' ng Station Unit No.1 Notices of petitions were published in the F d Recister. 44 Fed. Reg. 6525,10445 (Februar e eral and all petitioners have.'sen advised b y 1 and February 20, 1979) viere being treated as req y letter tha* their ;stitions Cu:rission's regulations. uests for action under 10 CF3 2 205 of the At issue in the pctitions is the of the concrete at the Woif Creek facili a ccep tabili ty ty. are whether the base m2.t concrete is Specifically, the issuas of conce of sufficient strength for its inte d rn n ed 1/ Wanda Christy of Burlington, Kansas; Max McDo David McCullough of Emporia, Kansa Kays ' s; Tony White of Garnett, Kansa Kar.sa,9er of McPherson, Kansas; Ferdinand and Ivon Jaret Skiles, and Tom Wheeler of WiMarvin Dawson urmeister cf 0:is, e a f of Kansans fo-Sensible Ere c petition datec May 15 1979, on behalf of the Kansas B ilchita, Ka Traces Council, also re,cuested that by ~, the Wolf Creek cons:u cinc and ;crst.:ction uction pi (- bE revoked. 79081ios z t /.; ! > }
-2. t function and whether the qu li a to assure acceptable concret ty assurance system at the f e work. acility is adequa These matters have been revi determined thatthe December 19,197 Sewed and for the re by the March 5,1979 e t.. I hate in the rea: tor contain. ment b il, Ir e 1 2 as modifie: halti struction at the ilolf Creek facilidinc cay be lifte u suspensicn cf con-ir:erest cf p.' blic health andty is not warranted at this ti denied.~l a s a fe t.v. me in the According)3 the - a ..c cm r s. s, ~. ~e c.~e The facts surrounding this matt December 12 and 13,1977 the L' l er are detailed in ADper. dix C man lithic pour of ab ut 6600 o f Creek building base mat was Eriefly, en currently made frcr cubic yards of concrete. pl:ced as a single T licenses ncti'ied.';P.C Region !\\' representative sam est cylinders were con-the concrete. that some of On March 14, 1978 thi ted (as specified) 90 days af the centrete cylinders whi h ter the original placement di c were tes d not meet the specified ,lf The December 19, 1978 letter is enclosed i 2/ The March 5, 1979 letter is n Appendix A. .3/ Cr the basis of the facts cent ienclosed in Appendix B. on behali c7 the K by this decisien. ansas Sullding and Constru :ia ned in his peti However, !:r. Bukat Ta:tual on Trades Council is cerf 1 , r:0r.aticr. tay be available.y indica:ed in :he p su:h 1nton.ation, and tnis decisi ArrangeT .r. m a:y's petiticr. shoulc anyon vill be re :enis ha'.e been ca4 t: be cO:21r.ed. urther new relevan: nsidered with res:e::
- tain an: -
a:erial inforra:ic-n 3 p q_ k*- s L D } y g 6 % %n >g m t.2 a y b. 3 strength of 50D3 pounds per square inch. The licensee initiated various. efforts to identify the reasons for the low strength of some of the test cylinders, and on October 26, 1978 filed a final report which descriced the work perferred, and which concluded that the lo<e strer.;th cylinder tests were not truly re;resentative of the concrete in place, and that the concrete in cla:e in the c:ntainmen: tuilding base cat did in f act satisfy specifica-tien requirements. In December, 1975 the licensee reported that s: e problems had been experienced placing concrete under steel inserts fcr access hatches. As a resul:, voids existed ;here there was r: concrete or poorly consolidate: ccncrete. In licht of this occurrence, and the continuing delay in resolution of questions en the base mit concrete, NR: Regic: IV representatives ret with the licensee, ex;ressed the opinion that farther concrete work on tr.e containment a n: building should be susper.ded un:il concrete pla:ing and c nsolidation prc:edures were irprcved, cor: rete placing creas were further trained, ccr. re:e inspectc s and inspection procedures were upgraded, and questions on base mat quality were res lved. The licenses agreet, and the agreement was documented in a letter from Region IV dated Decenter 19, 1978. This agreement was modified by a l'. arch 5,1979 letter frcm NRC Region IV. 9 A special NRC investigation was conducted under NRC Region IV direction during the period from November 13 through 17, 1978, and Decemb'er 6 thrcugh 9, 1979. 5/ The team was composed of inspectors from NRC Regions III and IV and Parameters, Inc., a consultant on concrete engaged specifically for this purpose. The tear concluded that it could not agree with the icensee's opinion, ar.d that the test data rust be considered to accurately reflect the streng:n cf the centrete in olace. On the basis of the test data, it was determined that a maxim"m strength cf 4450 psi could be justified. This was approximately 10% understrength frcr the design strength of 5000 psi. The licensee c:ncu:ted a reanalysis by two alternative nethods to deternine whether a lower strength ccncrete micht be acceotable for use at the k'olf Creek site. Tne reanalysis was submitted on June 6, 1979. It shoulc be noted that so e of the ninety day cylinders showed icser strength than companion cylinders from the same batch cf concrete tested after 22 days. There is some rand: ness in test results and, although concrete s;rength generally increases with age, some river gravel in the vicinity of the site is xncan to contain an ingredient which can cause loss of strenc h The NRC co' nsultant suggested that this might explain the Tn cor: rete. aprarently anonalous behavior of some of the test cylinders. To test the validity of this hypothesis, and to independently correlate the results of sone of the tests performed by tne licensee's consultant, the Construction Technology Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association, NRC arranged for the US Arry Ccrps of Engineers Waterways Excerinen: Statim. cerfc-~ ince:endent
- e:r0 graphic examinations of samples of con:re:e from the test cylinde s.
-ne 1/ See Ins:~e:: tor Report STN 50 4E2/78-13 (February 15, 1979). t
4. Corps of Engineers' report is rade part of this decision as Appendix D. Results of the independent examination of the Corps of Engineers correlate closely with the results of the licensee consultant's examination. Both show that there is no evidence of contanination with adverse ingredients which ray tave caused a loss in strength of the concrete over time and that the sam:les are representative of sound, relatively high strength ccrcrete. Thus the ir. stances where the cylinders tested after 90 days showed lcwer streng:h -han :he :ylinders of the sane concrete batch which was tested af ter ES days may be at:-ibuted to rand mness in the testing process. The licer.see's reanalysis and the rep:rt of the Corps of Engineers have been reviewed. The result of that review is that the concrete base mat will withs;and the specified design loads and loading ccmbinations without im;airrent of its structural intecrity or its safety functions. 6/ In respor.se to our concerns ab:ut cuality assurance resulting frcm the findings of the inspection conducted during November 13-16,1978, and December E-2,197E, 7/ NRC Region IV representatives met with senior representa-N til tives of the licensee and its construction contractor. E/ Agreenents achieved 97~# during the meeting are documented in an Immediate Action Letter to the licensee 'h s &b -6/ Evaluation Rep rt Regarding the Concrete Strength of the Reactor Building Ease Pat Wolf Creek Generating Station, which is r.ade ,_ m " rr? part of this decision and is attached as Appendix E. The evaluation 6_.,33' re::r: is case: on the U.12 g safe shu:cown eartnquake and the E'C O.Cf g :perating basis earthquake approvec for the Wolf Creek si:e'. Ine irf:rmatic' ccncerninc seismic forces contained in the June 25, 1979 ([h[) letter fro-P.r. Karc has been previously cor.sidered by the staf# at: ': r=== 3 coes no alter the vibratory grcund motion values for the Wolf C es; site. E:; 7 cflU$27/ Tne f" d.ings are reported in Insoection Reo:rt No. STN 50 aE2/7E-i. I kjg;;, - tj::icegf'.icla:icnwasissuedc-recrua ry 16, 1979, on the bas.s :# : "; .. e m_ -, c... _a_,,, i Tre ee:i.; is re::-:ed ir. Irs;e::icn Repor: No. STN 50-482/79 ', e.- t. i.
s -h-dated December 19, 1978, including the licensee's commitment to suspend. placement of safety-related concrete. Based on information obtained curing follow-up inspections that were ronducted to examine the licensee's ir.;lementa-tion of these agreements, / lC Region IV concluded that the licensee had been responsive to the NRC's concerns and that nodificatics of the Decerber 19th Irmediate Action Letter appeared ap;ropriate,to pernit clace ent of safety-rela te: concrete except in contain. Tent. Inspection Report No. STN 50-4E2/79-04 describes actions and findings of an inspection conducted on March 5-8, 1979, at :ne resumption cf place.ent of :cntrete at 'r.'olf Creek, During the inspection on " arch S,1979, the licensee nctified the NRC -hat it had agai termir.ated placemen: cf concrete. The licensee's action was nct inconsistent with NRC Region I"'s nodification of the December 19th Immediate Action Letter. The licensee's action den:nstrated the licensee's adherence to its cuality assurance program. Despite the iicensee's apparen concern to demon trate an effective cuality assurance orc; ram, NRC Region IV found noncompliance with the prograr as indicated in Irspe: tion Report Nc. STN 50 LE2/79-04 and as discussed in the related enforcement letter dated April 11, 1979 Add':ional insrections jkg were conducted specifically to observe concrete work in progress on March 25-29, 1979, 5 April 9-12,1979, b April 15-19,1979, E and April 23-25, 1979. I5/ dm (f~bb) The results of these inspections indicate that Wolf Creek's cuality assurance prograr is effective in correcting identified problems. 7-R$ d:d; 3 Accordingly, I find reasonable assurance :na: the licensee's cuilia
- m w w?
9 Tne ir.soe::icn findings are containa' in Insrection Re ort Nos. STN 50 252/79-01 C[~ a.d STN 53 LE2/79-03. 6222Ch 1 ' I ::e:5ic-iocr: Nc. STN 50 152/79-05. ,7 - A s. Ir.spe::icn Re-ort No. STN 50-LE2/79-07. n*. J s -'I .P. .**-b a.. (, s e. 4*P*
- My*
O. f 4 3 % f"._".1 .. S. e..-. < - - : ....r. y,. e... en.::,m:.n: v . i..
7-assurance program is adequate to pemit resumed placement of containnent concrete. Thus, for the reasons stated in this decision, the p.etitions to suspend or revoke the Wolf Creek construction permit are denied. la/ ane-t theless, the IRC will continue its inspection effort at the Wolf Cree. facility to assure that the '.icensee correctly places concrete and preserly maintains its cuality assuran:e program.15/ y,dI MM --14/ Critical Mass has also suggested, without elaboration, that the circumstcnces m surrounding constru: tion problems at Wolf Creek indicate significant weak-wp nesses" in Recion IY's inspection capabilities. Since potential proble s with Cum containment concrete were first icentified in March 1978, Recion IV has, in N' cor. junction with I&E Headquarters, been continuously aware of the licensee's (M actions, has guided and required various actions by the licensee, an: nas y a obtained specialized assistance from other tiRC offices and outsice carries. j p"' " Tnus, I find no basis for the expressed concern about the adequa,cy c# :egion I'l's ins:ection effort. b ' 15/ f;;; Regi r IV, in the er. force ent letter accompanying Inspectic-Es:: - tio. STN 5: 422/7 -04, alsc excressed its viere that tne licensee had r. : 2:I;cr.ed WD suffi:ien: personnel Ic the p ject t: imDiement an effective preve : ce E"? c.ali:y assu ance effor:. As a result, a management meeting was cc :.::ed in "4 Reg'c-IV's effices or bril 2E, it79, which is reper:ed in Ine-a----- - c -- t
- "J r,:. 5 N 5: z92/79-10.
The licensee has c -.itte: o assicnmen: c 2:: m onal C s a". ': ece, - :t c# :Pe ne. s:2 " must be "e;"uited and r.: 5:5edule p
- r IE le-e.;a:ici 'as beer, se.
CD' ? ,,i
A copy of this determination will be placed in the Commission's Pubiic Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and the local Public Document Room for le Wolf Creek Generating Station at the Coffey County Courthouse, Burlington, Kansas 66339. A copy of this document will also be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordant? with 10 CFR 2.205(c) cf the Commission's regulations. In accorcance with 10 Cr?, 2.205(c) cf the Ccmmission's Rules of Fractice, this decision will constitute the final action of the Commission twtr.ty (2D) days af ter the da:e of i:suar.ce, unless the Commissicr on its own motion ir.stitutes review of this decision withir. that time. V . >-7, Victor Stello; Jr. Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this f2 day of July,1979.
Enclosures:
Appencix A - Decenber 19, 1978 Immeciate Action Letter Appendix B - March 5,1979 Immediate Action Letter Appendix C - Surnary of Concrete Problems on the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant Appendix D - Eeoort of Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , Appendix I - Staff Evaluation Report Recarding Concrete Strength of the Reactor Building Base Mat, Wolf Creek Generating Station a + e O e r5 [ l. u J un datajM4L
pa a t es, UNITE D STATES ,8 Appendix A [ ~ NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION R EGION IV 5.. ( ..g 611 RYAN PLAZA DatVE. SUITE 1000 ,)- ARLINGTON TEXAS 76011 s. p ~ December 19, 1978 Docket No. STN 50-482 Kansas Gas and Electric Company ATTH: Mr. G. L. Koester Vice President bperations Post Office Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Gentlemen-7.- This refers to the meeting with you, Mr. H. W. McCall, President, Power Group of Daniel Construction Company, Inc. and Mr. J. M. Evans, Manager, ?;uclear Projects of Kansas City Power and Light Company and Messrs. K. V. Seyfrit, W. C. Seidle and W. A. Crossman of this office on December 18, 1978, and subsequent telephone conversations between Messrs. Koester and Seidle on Decer6er 19, with respect to safety related concrete placement, consolidation, testing and inspection at the Wolf Creek site. With regard to this meeting and the subs (quen't hiephone conversation 5, we understand that you have or plan to: 1. .Immediately halt further placement of concrete in safety related structures until the following proposed reviews and corrective measures have been co-Qleted. 2. Completely review concrete placement and related work procedures to assure their adequacy for the placement and consolidation of concrete. 3. Completely review quality control, inspection and testing procedures to confirm their adequacy. 4. Assure all persons in construction engineering, construction, and quality control are fully cognizant of these procedures, or any ~ modifications to these procedures and that Quality Assurance verifies that the appropriate persons are trained in these procedures. 5. Review the adequacy of the quality assurance procram for verifying the satisfactory placement and consolidation of concrete to meet project requirerents. lhoso fcc I /
Appendix A Kansas Gas and Electric Company - 6. Review the adequacy of the quality control program for verifying satisfactory implementation of the procedures. 7. Review the specific void in the concrete under the equipment hatch in the reactor containment wall to detemine probable cause and corrective action. 8. Review and confim the independence of inspection and verificatica organizations. 9. Establish a Daniel Constru; tion Company ad hoc comittee comprising David M. McAfee, Chainnan; Leu R. Smith; Richard /.. Bradshaw; and William E. Hitt to review, evaluate, and attest tc, the adequacy cf the above action items prior. to further placement of safety related concrete. Kansas Gas and Electric Company will be represented at each comittee meeting by at least one individual from its Quality Assurance group. 10. David McAfee, Comittee Chairman, is to report to Mr. H. W. McCall, Pres ident Power Group, Daniel Construction Company, on a daily basis as to the progress being made on these actions. Mr. M: Call, in turn, will keep you infon ed, daily, of the comittee's significant findings. 11. Discuss with Region IV personnel the completion status of the reviews and corrective teatures identified above, along with any significant findings, -prior to resuming the placement cf ccncrete in. safety related structures. If our understanding of your plans is inconsistent with the.above, please wntact this office imediately. ~ Sincerely, l b Wm? :f<. - K. V. Seyfrit.... Director 1 i s e
. :gye** "%'c, umito STAT ts suctee.n Recu ATORY Ccvwmo.N Apnendix 8 f,% - $./y D.. p' j 3 R ECION IV 6 P' 2A DRIVE, su;TE 1m 4 n, e.g./g e u c..w.TtxAs n. n March 5, 1979 In Reply Ver To: RIV Do:ket No. STN 50-4S2/Rpt. 79-03 Kansas Gas ar.d Electric Cc pany A TM: F.r. G. L. Koester Vi:e.: resider.t Operati ons P. O. Box 203 i'ichita, Vansas 67201 Gentlemen: inis refers to car letter to you dated December 19, 1975 Which eckn.N.1-edges your ;inten to halt further placement of concrete in safety related structures ur.til certain reviews and corrective actions have been cr.pleted, and to our telephone ccaversation of March 5,1979. During our inspecticns since De: ember 19, and specifically during our ir.spection of February 20-23, 1979, tre have ra MIOrec your act1vities and ver171ed comple:1cn cf those specific ite.s noted in our December 19 letter. As of this date, we have no further cuestions regarding the couitr.ents doct::ented in that letter. k'a agree that placement of safcty related concrete in structures cther than ' he contaircent buildin; r.Ey now continue. t During our review of your corrective actier.s, sc.e cctential noncomplicnce iter.s were noted. These rr:.tters will be cor-unicated to you separataly with the issuance of the report covering this inspection. Additionally, you are aware that there are several requests fm the public which re:;uire disposition in accordance wi th 10 CFR Part 2.205. h'hile resur:ption of con: rate placement in other safety related structures c.ay n:ry procecc', you recognize that the ratter of acceptance of the Base fut concrete has not been resolved. _ Additionally, you are a',tarr that the n?,C is revie'.n n; acceptability of th e Base iht. Pending resolution cf the acceptability of the Base M:, we understand that no cracrete will be placed in the containment huilding nr its internals except for repair of voids in con: rete already placed. C_RTIFIED KfdL - RETURU RECEIFT REQUESTED ,n !!.r
Kansas Gas and Electric Coccany 2-M ark c. 1c70 If our understanding of your plans is in:casistent with the areve, please contact this office i.mediatel.y. Sincerely, p. inn.)? k ,v r e. 4arl V. Seyfrit j / Director cc: H. D. Thorr. burg, RCI D. E. Vassallo, AD' WR E. Li citra, LIP. 3 G e =}}